fYlfsA  5 


THE  MYTH 
OF 

AMERICAN 

IMPERIALISM 


BY 

Otto  H.  Kahn 


% 


(Jrom  Committee  of  American  Business  Men 

fj  ‘Park  York 


i  i  •• 


* 


p 


/ 


. 

V'- 


THE  MYTH 
OF 

AMERICAN 

IMPERIALISM 


BY 

Otto  H.  Kahn 


T*  HE  League  for  Industrial  De¬ 
mocracy  ,an  organization  endors¬ 
ing  the  principle  of  social  ownership 
of  industry ,  at  a  meeting  held  at  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Restaurant,  New  York , 
on  December  30th ,  1924,  discussed 
the  subject  of  American  Imperialism. 

The  speakers  were  Professor 
Edwin  Meade  Earle  of  Columbia 
University ,  two  leading  Socialists , 
viz. :  Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  and  Dr. 
ScottNearing,and  Mr. Otto  H.  Kahn. 
In  his  address ,  which  is  reproduced 
in  the  following  pages,  Mr.  Kahn 
denied  the  allegation  of  American 
Imperialism. 

Committee  of 
American  Business  Men 


THE  MYTH 
OF 

AMERICAN 

IMPERIALISM 


BY 

Otto  H.  Kahn 


T'HE  League  for  Industrial  De¬ 
mocracy ,  an  organization  endors¬ 
ing  the  principle  of  social  ownership 
of  industry ,  at  a  meeting  held  at  the 
Fifth  Avenue  Restaurant,  New  York , 
on  December  30th ,  1924 ,  discussed 
the  subject  of  American  Imperialism. 

The  speakers  were  Professor 
Edwin  Meade  Earle  of  Columbia 
University ,  two  leading  Socialists , 
viz. :  Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  and  Dr. 
ScottN earing, and  Mr.  Otto  H.  Kahn. 
In  his  address ,  which  is  reproduced 
in  the  following  pages ,  Mr.  Kahn 
denied  the  allegation  of  American 
Imperialism. 

Committee  of 
American  Business  Men 


THE  MYTH  OF 
AMERICAN  IMPERIALISM 


I  AM  in  the  midst  of  the  active  life  of 
business.  I  must  keep  my  eyes  open  to 
the  realities  of  things.  To  hold  my  place 
I  must  be  fairly  competent  to  discern 
currents,  impulses  and  tendencies  in  our 
national  life.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  never,  in  the  thirty  years  concern¬ 
ing  which  I  can  speak  from  personal  ob¬ 
servation,  have  I  encountered  Imperial¬ 
ism,  in  this  country. 

Looking  over  the  history  of  the  United 
States,  and  granting  one  single  contin¬ 
gent  reservation  dating  back  three-quar¬ 
ters  of  a  century,  i.e.,  the  war  against 
Mexico,  it  may  be  asserted  justly  and 
truthfully,  I  believe,  and  without  Phar¬ 
isaical  self-complacency,  that  America 
has  made  no  unfair  use  of  her  power, 
that  she  has  not  employed  her  strength 
to  subjugate  and  exploit  other  peoples, 
that  she  has  resisted  the  temptation  of 
forcible  aggrandizement,  that  she  has 
pursued  a  foreign  policy  which  aimed  to 
keep  in  the  path  of  justice,  and  that,  if 
any  lapses  did  occur  in  her  international 
dealings,  they  were  of  the  head,  not  the 
heart.  Some  of  you  may  answer:  “Amer¬ 
ica  did  not  covet,  because  she  did 
not  need.”  That  opens  up  a  question 
not  of  fact,  but  of  speculation,  not  of 

l3> 


ascertaining  actualities,  but  of  attribu¬ 
ting  motives.  I  believe  you  will  agree 
with  me  that  no  useful  purpose  would 
be  served  in  pursuing  a  discussion  along 
lines  which  could  lead  to  no  demonstra¬ 
ble  issue. 

i.  The  Allegation  of  Political  or 
Military  Imperialism 

You  will  point  an  accusing  finger  and 
you  will  hurl  the  challenging  question: 
“What  about  Hayti  and  San  Domingo, 
what  about  Nicaragua,  Honduras,  and 
so  forth  ?”  It  is  true  we  did  send  military 
forces  to  these  countries.  There  did, 
most  regrettably,  occur  some  blood¬ 
shed.  In  the  execution  of  our  program 
we  did  commit  some  errors  in  judgment 
and  in  manners.  We  did,  in  certain  mea¬ 
sures,  proceed  bunglingly  and  clumsily, 
as  Governments  and  their  agents  not  in¬ 
frequently  do,  especially  when,  as  in  the 
cases  under  discussion,  the  task  to  be 
undertaken  is  an  unusual  and  unexpect¬ 
ed  one,  and  there  are  neither  traditions 
which  afford  guidance  nor  a  trained  per¬ 
sonnel  to  attend  to  the  execution.  (Inci¬ 
dentally,  the  very  absence  of  such  per¬ 
sonnel  tends  to  prove  how  little  the 
thoughts  of  our  Government  and  people 
were  on  Imperialism.) 

But  the  test  is  in  the  answer  to  the 
question  which  in  my  turn  I  ask  of  you: 
“What  was  our  purpose?  Did  we  go  to 
oppress  and  exploit,  did  we  go  to  add 
these  territories  to  our  domain?  Or  did 
we  go  to  end  an  inveterate  rule  of  tyran¬ 
ny,  malefactions  and  turmoil,  to  set  up 

l4> 


decent  and  orderly  government  and  the 
rule  of  law,  to  foster  progress,  to  estab¬ 
lish  stable  conditions  and  with  them  the 
basis  for  prosperity  to  the  populations 
concerned  ?” 

I  think  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it 
was  these  latter  things  we  aimed  to  at¬ 
tain.  And  having  measurably  accom¬ 
plished  the  task,  we  did  withdraw,  or 
shall  withdraw.  We  left  behind,  or  shall 
leave  behind,  a  few  persons  charged  with 
the  collection  and  proper  administration 
of  certain  revenues,  but  such  arrange¬ 
ments,  to  which  I  shall  refer  more  fully 
later  on,  are  no  more  in  the  nature  of 
exploitation  or  oppression  than  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  a  person  under  a  deed  of 
trust  is  in  the  nature  of  exploitation  or 
oppression. 

These  countries  are  almost  at  our  door. 
When  we  look  out  of  our  national  win¬ 
dow,  they  are  within  our  sight.  They 
are  situated  athwart  one  of  our  main 
trade  and  strategic  routes.  It  is  within 
our  duty  as  neighbors,  within  our  nat¬ 
ural  rights  and  our  legitimate  self-inter¬ 
est  to  see  to  it  that  they  cease  to  be  cen¬ 
ters  of  perpetual  disturbance,  that  the 
rudiments  of  decent,  orderly  and  civiliz¬ 
ing  government  be  observed  by,  and  for 
the  benefit  of,  their  people,  that  these 
fertile  regions  become  adequately  use¬ 
ful  to  the  v/orld  and  to  their  own  inhab¬ 
itants. 

To  the  argument  that  we  ourselves 
are  not  spotless,  that  our  governmental 
ways  do  not  function  to  perfection,  that 
we  have  lynchings  unavenged  by  the 
law,  that  crime,  law  defiance  and  abuses 

I  5  > 


are  not  unknown  in  this  country, — to 
that  argument  I  will  refer  only  long 
enough  to  say  that,  while  it  may  have  a 
certain  efficacy  in  dialectics,  it  seems  to 
me  manifest,  for  obvious  reasons,  that 
it  has  no  weight  or  bearing  in  a  sober 
discussion  aiming  not  at  oratorical  lau¬ 
rels  but  at  the  ascertainment  of  facts. 
(Similarly,  I  will  leave  aside  the  conten¬ 
tion  that  the  very  existence  of  America 
is  based  upon  Imperialism,  inasmuch  as 
we  took  the  country  away  from  the  In¬ 
dians.) 

You  may  charge  me  with  the  offense 
of  condoning  high  crimes  and  misde¬ 
meanors  against  the  hallowed  doctrine 
of  “self-determination. ”  Well,  I  frankly 
admit  that  my  respect  for,  and  allegi¬ 
ance  to,  that  doctrine  is  by  no  means 
free  from  reservations.  Neither  nations 
nor  human  beings  have  an  unqualified 
right  to  self-determination.  Neither  a 
nation  nor  a  human  being  has  a  right  to 
make  a  public  nuisance  of  itself.  Self- 
determination  is  limited  by  considera¬ 
tions  of  the  welfare  of  the  community. 
Individuals  that  are  proven  incompe¬ 
tent,  shiftless,  vicious,  or  affected  with 
contagious  disease,  are  subject  to  ap¬ 
propriate  measures  on  the  part  of  the 
State.  Nations  whom  long  and  incon¬ 
trovertible  experience  has  proved  to  be 
unable  or  unwilling  to  so  administer 
their  estates  as  to  make  them  conform 
to  the  minimum  requirements  of  the 
world’s  work,  who,  instead  of  develop¬ 
ing,  impede  development, — nations, 
when  finally  so  adjudged  by  the  consen¬ 
sus  of  the  world’s  public  opinion,  are 

{6} 


properly  subject  to  reasonable  measures 
of  intervention,  not  in  the  spirit  of  the 
strong  despoiling  the  weak,  but  in  the 
spirit  of  the  strong  aiding  the  weak,  of 
advanced  civilization  helping  retarded 
civilization,  of  light  being  let  into  dark 
places. 

The  purposes,  tendencies  and  charac¬ 
ter  of  an  individual  or  a  nation  can  often 
be  discerned  as  much  from  what  they 
deliberately  refrain  from  doing  as  from 
what  they  do.  An  imperialistic  nation 
would  have  appropriated  Cuba  after  the 
Spanish-American  War,  as  a  matter  of 
course, — or,  if  not  then,  would  have 
availed  itself  of  one  of  the  repeated  oc¬ 
casions  which  offered  themselves  since 
then,  to  do  so.  America  did  not  appro¬ 
priate  Cuba.  The  wise  and  reciprocally 
useful  treaty  which  she  made  with  her, 
bears  no  resemblance  to  appropriation. 
Again,  after  the  World  War,  America 
had  opportunity  to  extend  her  territor¬ 
ial  sway.  She  refused  to  do  so.  In  the 
closing  year  of  the  Taft  Administration 
and  the  first  two  years  of  the  Wilson 
Administration,  America  had  strong 
provocation  and  plausible  ground  for 
intervention  of  an  integral  and  more  or 
less  lasting  character  in  Mexico.  It  is 
well-known  that  several  European  Gov¬ 
ernments  expected  no  less,  and  that 
strong  pressure  was  brought  to  bear 
upon  our  Government  to  do  so.  No 
greater  temptation  than  authority  over 
that  vast  and  rich  country  could  have 
been  offered  to  any  nation.  No  nation 
even  faintly  touched  with  Imperialism 
would  have  declined  the  opportunity 

{7} 


which  the  then  existing  constellation  of 
circumstances  offered  both  actually  and 
sentimentally.  America  did  resist  that 
temptation  and  did  decline  that  oppor¬ 
tunity. 

I  would  add  that  if  America  had  meant 
to  go  in  for  Imperialism,  her  choice  of 
objectives  would  prove  her  a  singularly 
inept  “picker.”  Surely,  there  was  far 
bigger  game  to  be  bagged  than  the  Car- 
ibbeans  and  the  other  places  where  she 
is  alleged,  principally,  to  have  indulged 
in  that  sport.  The  additional  trade  or 
control  of  raw  materials,  which  were  to 
be  obtained  in  those  countries,  are  as 
nothing  compared  with  our  total  bal¬ 
ance  sheet;  the  wealth  which  might  be 
drawn  from  them  is  a  drop  in  the  bucket 
compared  with  the  profitable  opportun¬ 
ities  available  at  home  or  beckoning 
elsewhere  abroad.  What  worth-while  in¬ 
ducement  was  there  for  us  to  pursue 
Imperialism  in  those  parts  of  the  globe? 
Commercially,  the  stake  was  not  worth 
playing  for.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
strategic  requirements,  the  American 
Government  could  doubtless  have  ob¬ 
tained  what  is  judged  needful,  for  a  not 
too  exorbitant  monetary  consideration, 
by  simple  purchase  and  sale. 

Owing  to  the  limitation  of  the  time 
available,  I  cannot  enter  into  the  mat¬ 
ter  of  America’s  ownership  of  the  Phil¬ 
ippines,  except  to  point  out  that  it  came 
to  us  as  an  unforeseen  incident  of  the 
Spanish-American  War,  unsought  and 
decidedly  unwanted,  but — having  come 
— it  involves  a  national  responsibility 
which,  in  self-respect  and  in  duty,  we 

m 


are  bound  to  discharge,  and  of  which 
we  cannot  divest  ourselves  until  it  is 
fairly  discharged.  Likewise,  time  does 
not  permit  me  to  answer,  in  anticipa¬ 
tion,  such  conclusions  as  subsequent 
speakers  of  the  evening  may  presum¬ 
ably  draw  from  the  circumstances  sur¬ 
rounding  America’s  construction  of  the 
Panama  Canal.  I  will  confine  myself  to 
saying  that,  whatever  may  be  one’s 
opinion  as  to  President  Roosevelt’s 
manner  of  proceeding,  the  aim  in  view 
and  accomplished  by  him  fits  into  no 
reasonable  definition  of  Imperialism. 

2.  The  Allegation  of  Economic 
Imperialism 

Some  of  you,  while  perhaps  inclined 
not  to  insist  upon  the  charge  of  Polit¬ 
ical  or  Military  Imperialism,  may  yet 
maintain  the  arraignment  of  Economic 
or  Financial  Imperialism. 

As  to  Economic  Imperialism,  I  know 
of  no  instance,  within  the  time  of  my 
observation,  in  which  that  has  been 
practiced,  unless  you  choose  to  apply 
the  term  to  the  legitimate  advancement 
and  defense  of  American  trade.  In  the 
ordinary  pursuit  of  commerce,  it  has 
occurred  that  American  business  men 
have  sought,  and  have  obtained,  con¬ 
cessions  in  foreign  countries.  The  word 
“concession”  has,  and  in  the  past  not 
unfrequently  deserved  to  have,  a  some¬ 
what  sinister  sound.  In  modern  Ameri¬ 
can  practice  it  has  meant  nothing  more 
than  that,  before  engaging  capital,  ef¬ 
fort  and  enterprise  in  out-of-the-way 

l9> 


places  of  the  world,  those  concerned 
want  to  be  assured  that  they  are  not 
setting  out  on  a  wild  goose  chase,  but 
that  certain  functions  and  opportuni¬ 
ties  in  definite  territories,  on  definite 
terms,  for  a  definite  length  of  time,  are 
assigned  to  them  contractually  and  can¬ 
not  be  taken  away  from  them  capri¬ 
ciously. 

It  is  a  proper  and  natural  exercise  of 
the  function  of  Government  that  official 
cognizance  should  be  taken  of  the  grant¬ 
ing  of  such  concessions  and  that  the  mor¬ 
al  support  of  the  Government  should  be 
granted  to  American  citizens  for  the  un¬ 
disturbed  exercise  of  their  rights  there¬ 
under,  provided  always  that  there  is  no 
taint  of  fraud  or  corruption  in  their 
original  obtainment,  that  they  are  not 
unconscionable  in  their  essence,  and 
that  they  may  not  justly  be  held  to 
have  lapsed  through  the  fault  of  the 
holder.  It  does  happen  that  American 
concession-hunters  in  their  eagerness 
“bite  off  more  than  they  can  chew,” 
and  in  such  a  case,  our  Government 
should  not — nor,  as  far  as  I  am  aware, 
does  it — pursue  a  “dog-in-the-manger” 
policy. 

I  believe  the  following  points  may  be 
regarded  as  established: 

1.  Our  State  Department  does  not  lie 
awake  nights  seeking  to  obtain  con¬ 
cessions  for  American  citizens  or 
stimulating  them  to  obtain  conces¬ 
sions  for  themselves. 

2.  It  attempts  to  use  its  moral  influence 
against  the  granting  of  concessions 

{  io  > 


unfairly  discriminatory  in  favor  of 
other  nations  as  against  Americans, 
precisely  as  it  discountenances  con¬ 
cessions  unfairly  discriminatory  in 
favor  of  Americans  as  against  other 
nations. 

3.  Its  policy  is  not  to  encourage  the 
granting  of  exclusive  rights,  be  it  to 
Americans  or  to  citizens  of  other  na¬ 
tions,  but  on  the  contrary  our  Gov¬ 
ernment  stands  forth  as  the  cham¬ 
pion  of  the  open  door  and  equality  of 
opportunity  for  all  comers,  wherever 
practicable  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 

4.  It  takes  due  cognizance  of  the  grant 
of  concessions  (reasonably  warranted 
as  to  terms  and  conditions)  to  Amer¬ 
ican  citizens,  but  it  never  goes  be¬ 
yond  the  exercise  of  its  moral  influ¬ 
ence  in  maintaining  the  rights  of  its 
nationals  under  such  concessions, 
and  I  have  known  it  to  decline  to  do 
so  when  it  was  not  satisfied  as  to  the 
cleanness  or  fairness  of  the  American 
contention. 

5.  The  game  of  concession-hunting  or 
otherwise  exploiting  opportunities  in 
foreign  countries  is  neither  as  popu¬ 
lar  among  Americans  as  some  of  you 
would  suppose  it  to  be  nor  as  profit¬ 
able  as  it  is  “cracked  up”  to  be.  I  do 
not  claim  his  relative  aloofness  from 
that  game  as  a  sign  of  superior  virtue 
in  the  American,  but  rather  attribute 
it  to  the  fact  that  the  opportunities 
in  his  own  country  are  still  so  great 
— in  contrast  to  the  state  of  af¬ 
fairs  among  the  principal  nations  of 

I  11  > 


Europe — that  he  finds  it  difficult  to 
get  up  enthusiasm  and  eagerness  for 
employing  his  time,  thought,  effort 
and  capital  in  regions  too  far  distant 
from  “Broadway.” 

With  every  desire  to  make  at  least 
some  graceful  concessions  to  the  views 
held  by  the  previous  speaker,  and  prob¬ 
ably  by  the  majority  of  this  audience, 
I  am  bound  to  conclude  that  I  know  of 
no  practices  which  can  justly  be  charac¬ 
terized  as  Economic  Imperialism  on  the 
part  of  America. 

3.  The  Allegation  of  Financial 
Imperialism 

Lastly,  as  to  Financial  Imperialism: 

The  facts  are  simple  and  patent. 
America  holds  half  of  the  total  available 
stock  of  the  world’s  gold.  Its  people  are 
prosperous  and  have  a  surplus  of  funds 
for  investment.  Many  nations  are  in 
need  of  funds,  and  naturally  turn  to 
America. 

The  American  banker  acts  as  middle¬ 
man  between  the  lender  and  the  bor¬ 
rower.  His  first  function  in  that  capac¬ 
ity  is  to  investigate  the  solvency  and 
stability  of  the  applicant  for  funds. 
Next,  he  requires  assurance  that  the 
proceeds  of  the  loan  desired  are  for  le¬ 
gitimate  and  constructive  purposes.  He 
then  negotiates  terms,  both  as  to  the 
rate  of  interest  and  as  to  the  special  se¬ 
curity  (if  any),  requisite  in  order  to 
make  the  loan  palatable  to  the  Ameri¬ 
can  investor.  (I  will  not  omit  to  add 
that  these  terms  include  a  commission 

i  12  > 


for  himself  and  those  associated  with 
him,  but  I  will  also  add  that,  of  late 
years,  the  rate  of  that  commission  has 
become  practically  as  fixed  and  stereo¬ 
typed  by  custom  as  that  of  a  real  estate 
broker  or  an  architect.) 

In  making  arrangements  for  terms 
and  security,  he  must,  of  course,  bear  in 
mind  that  the  ultimate  provider  of  the 
funds  desired  to  be  raised,  is  not  the 
banker,  nor  even  the  financial  commun¬ 
ity,  but  the  great  army  of  investors.  His 
own  function  is  merely  that  of  negotia¬ 
tor  and  distributor.  The  goods  which  he 
purchases  are  intended  for  resale  to  the 
public.  They  are  not  meant  to  remain 
on  his  shelves.  If  they  do,  it  is  proof  of 
misjudgment,  and  if  he  falls  into  re¬ 
peated  misjudgment,  the  penalty  is  ex¬ 
haustion  of  his  working  capital,  and, 
eventually,  probable  failure.  The  es¬ 
sence  of  correct  banking  is  that  the 
banker  must  keep  the  bulk  of  his  funds 
in  liquid  shape. 

Therefore,  in  appraising  the  terms 
and  the  security  required  in  the  case  of 
a  loan  to  be  offered  to  the  public,  the 
banker  has  two  principal  things  in 
mind,  namely,  the  salability  of  the 
bonds  which  he  buys  and  the  permanent 
solvency  of  the  borrower.  The  public 
holds  him,  the  banker,  morally  respon¬ 
sible  for  his  recommendations,  and  the 
penalty  of  carelessness  or  poor  judg¬ 
ment  on  his  part  is  the  withdrawal  of 
the  confidence  and  the  patronage  of  the 
investor,  i.e.,  the  weakening,  or  even 
the  destruction,  of  the  very  fundament 
on  which  his  business  rests. 

i  13  I 


Is  it  not  perfectly  manifest,  that  in 
the  whole  process  of  the  dealings  of  the 
financier  with  the  borrower  there  enters 
only  one  main  question,  namely,  the 
plain  question  of  business,  and  that 
there  is  neither  room  nor  reason  for  the 
element  of  Imperialism? 

One  final  function  remains  to  be  ful¬ 
filled  before  the  banker,  having  com¬ 
pleted  mutually  satisfactory  negotia¬ 
tions  with  the  prospective  foreign  bor¬ 
rower,  whether  a  Government,  or  a  Mu¬ 
nicipality,  or  a  governmentally  guaran¬ 
teed  or  administered  undertaking,  offers 
his  wares  to  the  American  investor.  By 
custom,  which  has  acquired  the  force  of 
law,  inquiry  is  made  of  the  American 
State  Department  whether  it  sees  any 
objection  to  the  proposed  transaction. 
An  approving  reply  from  Washington 
involves,  of  course,  no  kind  of  moral 
guaranty  or  pledge  on  the  part  of  our 
governmental  authorities.  It  involves 
merely  an  implied  conclusion  on  the 
part  of  the  State  Department  that  the 
proposed  loan  is  intended  to  serve  a  le¬ 
gitimate  purpose  and  that  its  consum¬ 
mation  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  point 
of  view  of  the  American  Government. 

And  that  is  all  the  State  Department 
has  to  do  with  the  matter,  except  to  use 
its  good  offices  if  circumstances  arise 
which  jeopardize  the  rights  or  the  safety 
of  American  capital  placed,  in  good 
faith,  in  foreign  countries.  That  is  the 
limit  of  the  Government's  intercession. 
There  is  not  a  single  instance  when  the 
armed  forces  of  the  American  Govern¬ 
ment  have  been  employed  to  collect 

{  14  > 


debts,  or  otherwise  maintain  the  rights 
of  American  bankers,  financiers,  con¬ 
cessionaires  or  bondholders.  The  actu¬ 
ating  motive  for  the  use  of  such  forces, 
in  all  cases  when  armed  intercession 
was  resorted  to,  was  to  enact  national, 
not  private,  rights  and  duties.  If  among 
the  results  of  establishing  order  and  aid¬ 
ing  to  set  up  a  proper  system  and  ad¬ 
ministration  of  government  were  the 
fulfilment  of  due  financial  obligations 
and  compliance  with  legal  pledges,  it 
remains  true,  nevertheless,  that  the 
bringing  about  of  these  rightful  things 
was  one  of  the  efFects  of  the  action  of 
the  American  Government,  but  was  not, 
either  in  fact  or  in  spirit,  the  reason, 
incentive  or  purpose  which  caused  such 
action  to  be  taken. 

One  other  matter  remains  to  be  re¬ 
ferred  to,  which,  to  the  casual  and  per¬ 
haps  not  too  benignantly  inclined  be¬ 
holder,  may  have  the  appearance  of  im¬ 
perialistic  interference,  but  which  in 
fact  has  no  such  purpose,  meaning  or 
effect.  It  has  occurred  (as  it  will  doubt¬ 
less  continue  to  occur)  that  the  willing¬ 
ness  of  American  bankers  and  investors 
to  loan  funds  to  certain  foreign  coun¬ 
tries  was  made  dependent  upon  the 
American  Government  designating 
American  citizens  to  administer  special 
guarantees,  pledged  to  secure  the  loan 
service,  such  as  customs  or  similar  spe¬ 
cific  sources  of  revenue.  There  is  no 
more  of  Imperialism  in  our  Government 
making  such  designation,  as  and  if  re¬ 
quested  by  borrower  and  lender,  and  in 
the  exercising  of  such  functions  by  the 

I  15  > 


persons  so  designated,  than  there  is  Im¬ 
perialism  in  the  action  of  Mr.  Gilbert  in 
exercising  the  functions  of  Reparation 
Agent  under  the  provisions  of  the  Dawes 
Report,  by  the  common  consent  of  Ger¬ 
many  and  the  other  nations  concerned. 

Most  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  as 
well  as  many  municipalities  and  indus¬ 
trial  concerns  abroad,  are  eagerly  ask¬ 
ing  for  accommodation  in  the  shape  of 
the  loan  of  American  dollars,  to  an  ex¬ 
tent,  indeed,  exceeding,  for  the  time 
being,  the  inclination  and  capacity  of 
American  finance  and  the  American  in¬ 
vestor.  To  call  measurable  compliance 
with  such  requests,  on  reasonable  con¬ 
ditions  as  to  security  and  otherwise, 
Financial  Imperialism,  is  surely  to  at¬ 
tach  a  novel  and  strange  meaning  to 
that  term. 

When,  after  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War,  Europe  poured  funds  aggregating 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  into  the 
United  States  (taking  as  security  rail¬ 
road  and  land  mortgages)  and  thus  pro¬ 
vided  the  means  for  recovering  from  the 
effects  of  that  struggle  and  for  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  American  resources  and 
opportunities,  did  she  practice  Finan¬ 
cial  Imperialism?  If  so,  it  seems  to  me 
that  Lincoln’s  famous  reply  to  the  com¬ 
plaint  of  indulgence  in  whiskey-drink¬ 
ing,  brought  against  a  victory-winning 
General,  may  well  be  applied  to  that 
kind  of  Imperialism. 

The  tales  of  an  unsophisticated  and 
subservient  State  Department  and  a 
ruthless,  treaty-dictating,  world-manip¬ 
ulating  Standard  Oil  or  other  “big 

{  16  > 


business”  power  are  simply  myths.  The 
plain  fact  is  that  business  men  do  not 
possess  the  super-qualities  which,  either 
in  laudation  or  in  condemnation,  are 
frequently  attributed  to  them.  They 
have  neither  the  craftiness  and  greed, 
with  which  they  are  charged,  nor  the 
profundity  and  far-sightedness,  with 
which  they  are  credited. 

Having  had  some  little  experience 
with  the  inner  workings  of  things,  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  while 
finance  and  “big  business”  have  had 
occasion  at  times  to  act  as  servants  of 
the  State  Department,  they  have  never, 
within  the  period  of  my  recollection, 
been  permitted  to  be  its  masters.  And  I 
say  further  that  not  only  have  such  serv¬ 
ices,  generally,  not  been  compensated, 
but  that  in  more  than  one  instance  that 
I  know  of,  they  have  involved  both  ex¬ 
pense  and  effort,  not  recoverable  either 
directly  or  indirectly. 

It  is  astonishing  how  often  legends 
about  the  power  and  sway  of  bankers 
spring  into  being,  and  how  credulously 
they  are  accepted.  For  instance,  the  re¬ 
cent  international  loans  to  Austria  and 
Germany  have  been  the  text  for  many 
stories  telling  how  high  finance,  through 
the  conditions  governing  these  loans, 
reduced  these  countries  to  a  state  of 
vassalage  to  its  power.  The  fact  is  that 
in  neither  of  these  cases  did  bankers 
have  anything  to  do  with  determining 
the  conditions  which  were  basic  for  the 
loans.  In  the  case  of  Austria,  the  condi¬ 
tions  were  established  by  the  League  of 
Nations.  In  the  case  of  Germany,  they 

{  17  > 


were  fixed  by  the  Dawes  Commission 
and  by  the  conference  of  Prime  Minis¬ 
ters  and  Finance  Ministers  in  London 
last  summer. 

All  that  the  bankers  were  called  upon 
to  do,  and  did,  was  to  assist  in  the  work¬ 
ing  out  of  certain  technical  matters,  and 
to  advise  what  were  the  financial  terms 
at  which  the  proposed  issues  would  ap¬ 
peal  to  investors,  and,  particularly,  what 
were  the  assurances  of  stability,  of  se¬ 
curity  and  of  freedom  from  outside  in¬ 
terference,  which  were  requisite  in  order 
to  enable  them  (the  bankers)  to  take 
the  responsibility  of  recommending  the 
loans  to  investors  in  their  respective 
countries.  According  to  well-authenti¬ 
cated  reports,  the  person  most  outspo¬ 
kenly  in  accord  with  the  bankers’  point 
of  view  in  the  latter  aspect  and  most 
insistent  in  demanding  compliance  with 
it  (not,  of  course,  because  it  was  the 
bankers’  view,  but  because  he  believed 
it  to  be  the  right  view),  was  none  other 
than  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
in  the  Labor  Government  of  Great  Brit¬ 
ain,  the  Socialist  Philip  Snowden.  And 
the  then  Prime  Minister,  the  Socialist 
Ramsay  MacDonald,  rose  in  the  House 
of  Commons  to  declare  that  the  bankers 
had  in  no  way  gone  beyond  the  expres¬ 
sion  of  such  advice  as  had  been  asked 
of  them,  and  that  he  gratefully  acknowl¬ 
edged  the  value  and  the  spirit  of  their 
services. 

It  is  neither  my  function  nor  my  in¬ 
clination  to  claim  a  spotless  record  for 
American  business,  big  or  little.  But  I 
do  claim  that  whatever  other  charge 

I  18  > 


may  or  may  not  lie  against  it,  the  charge 
of  fostering  or  practicing  Imperialism  is 
without  ground  or  warrant  in  fact. 

A 

^  ^ 

I  have  not  tried  to  make  an  argument 
in  respect  of  Imperialism  “per  se.”  I 
have  not  aimed  either  to  defend  or  at¬ 
tack  it.  I  have  not  sought  to  examine 
the  question  whether  Imperialism,  nec¬ 
essarily  and  in  all  contingencies,  must 
be  adjudged  as  evil  and  unwarrantable. 
I  am  merely  saying  that,  according  to 
my  observations  and  judgment,  Imperi¬ 
alism  is  not  practiced  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment  or  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

I  am  aware  that  my  presentation  of 
the  case  under  discussion  may  engender 
the  retort  that  it  “doth  protest  too 
much.”  For  debating  purposes,  it  would 
doubtless  have  been  good  strategy  to 
make  my  affirmations  and  denials  less 
comprehensive.  I  can  only  say  that  if  I 
had  done  so,  I  should  have  failed  in  ad¬ 
herence  to  what  I  believe  to  be  the 
truth. 

I  am  likewise  aware  that  nothing 
lends  itself  more  easily  to  scoffing  and 
derision  than  the  avowal  of  disinterest¬ 
edness  of  purpose  and  decency  of  mo¬ 
tives.  I  realize  that  the  profession  of 
one’s  belief  in  the  genuineness  of  such 
avowals,  especially  in  the  case  of  na¬ 
tions,  runs  counter  somewhat  to  pre¬ 
vailing  intellectual  fashions  and  is  apt 
in  many  minds  to  create,  against  the 
person  so  professing,  the  presumption 
of  gullibility,  if  not  hypocrisy.  Yet,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  confess  that  I  am  naive 

I  19  > 


enough  to  believe  that  one  of  the  tradi¬ 
tions  and  springs  of  action  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people,  consistent  with  a  robust 
assertion  of  self-interest  and  self-coun¬ 
sel,  is  to  do  the  fair  and  square  thing  by 
other  nations,  large  or  small,  and,  ac¬ 
cording  to  its  lights,  to  endeavor  to  be  a 
serviceable  element  toward  the  progress 
and  welfare  of  humankind. 

4.  A  Few  General  Considerations 

May  I  trespass  upon  your  patience 
for  a  little  while  longer  to  give  expres¬ 
sion  to  a  few  observations  of  a  general 
character  which,  with  your  leave,  I 
should  like  to  submit  to  this  gathering: 

Let  me  begin  by  saying  that,  while  I 
am  not  a  Radical  and  while  I  wholly 
disbelieve  in  the  theories  of  Socialism,  I 
am  far  from  being  a  “Standpatter.”  I 
yield  respectful  consideration  to  every 
opinion  and  every  effort,  the  motives  of 
which  bear  the  hallmark  of  sincere  and 
worthy  purpose.  I  believe  in  progress 
and  in  the  stimulus  of  intelligent  and 
constructively  directed  discontent.  I  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  faults  of  Reaction,  with 
the  wars  and  repressions  springing  there¬ 
from,  have  done  more  harm  to  the  world 
than  the  faults  of  Radicalism.  I  am 
troubled  by  the  reflection  that,  in  too 
many  cases,  success  in  certain  lines  is 
too  richly  rewarded  in  proportion  to 
the  average  yield,  non-success  too  heav¬ 
ily  penalized,  that,  too  often,  the  same 
degree  of  effort  meets  with  too  uneven 
a  measure  of  compensation,  that  too 
many  of  the  trees  of  humankind,  for 

{  20  > 


lack  of  sufficient  light,  warmth  and  sus¬ 
tenance,  are  stunted  in  their  growth  or 
even  doomed  wholly  to  wither  and 
decay. 

I  believe  that  the  mass  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  people  want  what  is  sensible  and 
just  and  making  for  the  general  welfare. 
I  believe  that  there  is  a  vast  majority 
who  would  gladly  bring  cheer  and  com¬ 
fort  if  they  are  shown  wretchedness  and 
squalor,  right  if  they  are  shown  wrong, 
freedom  if  they  are  shown  oppression.  I 
believe  it  to  be  not  a  copy-book  maxim 
but  a  sober  and  well-attested  fact  that 
the  power  of  the  spirit  is  far  greater 
than  that  of  the  dollar,  that  the  might 
of  justice  and  right  is  far  greater,  ulti¬ 
mately,  than  that  of  selfishness,  preju¬ 
dice  or  greed. 

Let  me  quote  as  a  single  but  charac¬ 
teristic  illustration  in  connection  with 
this  last  sentence,  the  matter  of  woman 
suffrage.  A  great  majority  of  American 
men  were  originally  opposed  to  it,  part¬ 
ly  from  reasoned  conviction,  partly 
from  sentiment,  partly  from  an  instinct 
for  the  preservation  of  their  “superior¬ 
ity,”  partly  from  apprehension  that  the 
enlargement  of  the  electorate  would 
strengthen  the  Radical  vote.  Yet  when 
gradually  it  became  plain  to  the  aver¬ 
age  male  voter  that  no  argument  based 
on  justice  could  be  sustained  against 
the  proposition  of  giving  the  suffrage  to 
women,  the  opposition  crumbled  and 
woman-suffrage  won. 

Let  me  point  out  that  such  measures 
as,  for  instance,  the  progressive  income- 
tax,  collective  bargaining  by  employees, 

i  21  > 


the  eight-hour  day,  the  governmental 
supervision  and  regulation  of  railroads 
and  similar  natural  monopolies  or  semi¬ 
monopolies,  are  approved  by  the  sense 
of  justice  of  the  business  community, 
provided  the  application  of  such  mea¬ 
sures  is  kept  within  the  limits  of  reason, 
and  that  they  would  not  be  repealed  by 
business  if  it  had  the  power  to  repeal 
them. 

$  5jt  jfc 

What  you  Radicals  and  we  who  hold 
opposing  views  differ  about,  is  not  so 
much  the  end  as  the  means,  not  so  much 
what  should  be  brought  about  as  how  it 
should  and  can  be  brought  about,  be¬ 
lieving  as  we  do,  that  rushing  after  the 
utopian  is  not  only  fruitless  and  inef¬ 
fectual,  but  gets  into  the  way  of,  and 
retards,  progress  towards  realizing  at¬ 
tainable  improvement. 

With  all  due  respect,  I  venture  to 
suggest  that  Radicalism  too  often  tends 
to  address  itself  more  to  theoretical  per¬ 
fection  than  to  concrete  amelioration; 
to  phantom  grievances  or  grievances  of 
the  past,  which  have  lost  their  reality, 
rather  than  to  actual  matters  of  the 
day;  to  slogans,  dogmas,  professions, 
rather  than  to  facts.  Indeed,  I  have 
known  leading  Radical  orators  to  bend 
and  twist  the  necks  of  facts  most  merci¬ 
lessly,  if  the  poor,  rigid  facts  happened 
to  be  facing  in  another  direction  than 
the  speaker’s  arguments.  I  have  known 
them  to  attribute  all  virtue  to  certain 
elements  or  sections  of  the  community, 
and  all  evil  to  others;  to  lack  in  a  sense 

I  22  > 


of  proportion  and  in  a  homely  apprecia¬ 
tion  of  the  realities;  to  advocate,  in  the 
name  of  Liberty,  policies  embodying 
the  very  reverse  of  individual  freedom. 
I  do  not  mean  to  be  flippant  when  I  say 
that  the  attitude  and  expressions  of 
Radical  spokesmen  recall  to  my  mind, 
at  times,  the  story  of  the  dissenting 
juryman  who  complained  that  he  had 
never  met  eleven  such  obstinate  men. 

Leaving  aside  the  demands  of  ortho¬ 
dox  Socialism,  the  platform  of  Radical¬ 
ism  demands,  to  quote  only  a  few  of  its 
planks,  governmental  control  of  bank¬ 
ing  credits;  government  ownership  of 
railways;  such  extension  of  Governmen¬ 
tal  functions  as  would  mean  a  vastly 
augmented  bureaucracy;  extreme,  if  not 
throttling,  taxation  of  accumulated  cap¬ 
ital;  emasculating  restraints  in  respect 
of  the  Supreme  Court;  the  abolition  of 
an  Imaginary  Imperialism,  and  so  forth. 
I  am  frank  to  say  that  I  do  not  see  in 
what  respect  the  attainment  of  these 
and  similar  things  would  prove  of  tangi¬ 
ble  benefit  to  the  plain  people. 

I  see,  on  the  contrary,  under  the  op¬ 
eration  of  the  existing  social  and  eco¬ 
nomic  system — gradually  and  progress¬ 
ively  adapting  itself  to  the  problems 
and  conceptions  of  the  day — an  advanc¬ 
ing  tide  in  the  well-being  of  the  people, 
a  growing  assertion  of  the  social  con¬ 
science,  a  noteworthy  diminution  in  the 
difference  of  the  standard,  and  the  con¬ 
tents,  of  living  between  the  well-to-do 
and  the  masses.  And  I  see  further  that 
almost  all  the  leading  positions  in  gov¬ 
ernment,  industry  and  finance  are  held 

i  23  > 


by  sons  of  the  plain  people,  who  fought 
and  won  their  way  to  the  top. 

That  does  not  mean  that  I  see  ground 
for  self-complacent  satisfaction.  Much 
indeed  remains  to  be  accomplished,  and 
some  of  the  things  thus  remaining  call 
urgently  to  be  attended  to.  The  advent 
of  the  machine  period,  about  a  hundred 
years  ago,  and  the  subsequent  develop¬ 
ment  of  large  scale  production  in  indus¬ 
try,  while  they  have  brought  results  of 
vast  benefit  to  humanity  in  many  ways, 
did  also  bring  grave  maladjustments 
and  social  ills,  for  which  the  world  has 
not  yet  found  completely  adequate 
treatment  or  wholly  effective  remedies. 

It  seems  to  me  the  purpose  of  right- 
thinking  leaders,  of  whatever  political 
affiliations,  should  be  to  seek  principally 
the  tangible  result  of  making  the  lives 
of  the  people  steadily  fuller  and  richer, 
of  bringing  into  them  more  of  joy,  satis¬ 
faction  and  reward,  of  dislodging  squal¬ 
or,  misery,  drabness,  oppression,  denial 
of  opportunity. 

Of  course,  the  preservation  of  liberty, 
the  vigilance  and  protest  against  injus¬ 
tice,  are,  or  ought  to  be,  the  paramount 
concern  of  all  Americans,  whatever  their 
station  or  occupation,  I  would  frankly 
question,  however,  whether  alleged  Im¬ 
perialism,  and  such-like  highly  conten¬ 
tious  matters  do  cut  an  appreciable  and 
immediate  figure  in  the  life  of  the  aver¬ 
age  worker  and  his  family,  for  good  or 
ill.  But,  providing  him  with  better  hous¬ 
ing;  abolishing  ugly  and  degrading  tene¬ 
ments  ;  creatingparks  and  adequateplay- 
grounds;  establishing  well-equipped, 

{  24  > 


clean  and  airy  hospitals;  furnishing 
quick  and  comfortable  transportation; 
safeguarding  him  against  unemploy¬ 
ment,  sickness  and  old  age;  seeing  to  it 
that  he  has  sanitary  and  dignified  work¬ 
ing  conditions,  his  due  say,  adequate 
opportunity,  and  a  fair  chance  to  share 
in  the  fruits  of  industry;  making  the 
administration  of  justice  less  cumber¬ 
some,  complex  and  expensive;  giving  to 
him  and  his  family  ample  access  to 
knowledge,  art,  beauty,  and  culture — 
these  and  similar  things  do  mean  genu¬ 
ine  and  concrete  additions  to  his  enjoy¬ 
ment  and  contentment  and  to  the  value 
of  his  life. 

Such  things  are  not  controversial  in 
their  essence  as  between  Radicals,  Lib¬ 
erals  and  Conservatives,  their  benefits 
are  not  debatable,  and  they  are  assured¬ 
ly  obtainable.  Cannot  we  all  join  hands 
in  trying  to  bring  them  about? 

Extreme  claims  will  only  produce  ex¬ 
treme  resistance.  Undue  pressure  will 
inevitably  cause  commensurate  coun¬ 
ter-pressure.  Exaggerated  pronounce¬ 
ments  will  produce  exaggerated  appre¬ 
hensions. 

Is  it  quite  illusory  to  dream — in  this 
land,  favored  as  it  is  beyond  all  others 
with  those  things  which  make  for  widely 
diffused  prosperity  and  ought  to  make 
for  progress  and  happiness — that  well- 
intentioned  and  thoughtful  men,  with¬ 
out  yielding  their  respective  convictions 
and  ultimate  aims,  may  declare  a  truce 
for  a  while  and  unite  upon  attempting 
to  accomplish  those  things  which  most 
need  to  be  done? 


{  25  > 


Granting  you  the  privilege,  if  you  so 
wish,  to  look  upon  Conservatives  as  op¬ 
pressors,  despoilers  or  besotted  and 
upon  Liberals  as  ineffectual,  outmoded 
or  trimmers,  and  reserving  for  Conser¬ 
vatives  and  Liberals  the  privilege  to  re¬ 
ciprocate  in  kind,  is  it  really  quite  idle 
to  hope  that  we  may  cease  to  accentu¬ 
ate  and  propagate  friction,  antagonism 
and  bitterness,  and,  agreeing  upon  cer¬ 
tain  limited  objectives  desired  by  all 
right-minded  men,  that  we  may  find  a 
bridge  across  which  we  can  all  walk  to¬ 
wards  the  attainment  of  those  objec¬ 
tives  for  the  common  welfare  of  the 
American  people? 


{26} 


EDGAR  C  RUWE 
COINCNEWVORK 


